Thai EFL Students’ Use of Strategies in Reading English Texts
Transcript of Thai EFL Students’ Use of Strategies in Reading English Texts
329
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
Thai EFL Students’ Use of Strategies in Reading English Texts
Songyut Akkakoson1 and Bubpha Setobol2*
บทคัดย่อ การวิจัยนี้มีวัตถุประสงค์ในการกระตุ้นการใช้
กลยุทธ์การอ่านบทอ่านภาษาอังกฤษของนักศึกษาสายวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี โดยมีประเด็นในการศึกษา 5 ประการคือ 1) เพื่อสำรวจการใช้กลยุทธ์การอ่านของนักศึกษาที่มีระดับความสามารถในการอ่านต่างกัน กล่าวคือกลุ่มที่มีความสามารถในการอ่านสูง กลุ่มที่มีความสามารถในการอ่านปานกลาง และกลุ่มที่มีความสามารถในการอ่านต่ำ 2) เพื่อศึกษาผลของรูปแบบการสอนที่เน้นให้ผู้เรียนใช้กลยุทธ์ในการอ่านภาษาอังกฤษเพื่อความเข้าใจ 3) เพื่อสำรวจว่าผู้สอนสามารถกระตุ้นให้ผู้เรียนตระหนักถึงการใช้กลยุทธ์การอ่านเมื่ออ่านบทอ่านภาษาอังกฤษได้มากน้อยเพียงใด 4) เพื่อสำรวจทัศนคติของผู้เรียนต่อการใช้กลยุทธ์การอ่าน และ 5) เพื่อสำรวจปัญหาของผู้เรียนต่อการใช้กลยุทธ์การอ่าน ประชากรที่ศึกษาประกอบไปด้วยนักศึกษาระดับปริญญาตรีในสายวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยีจำนวน 207 คน เครื่องมือที่ใช้ในการวิจัยประกอบด้วยแบบทดสอบสำหรับประเมินสมิทธิผลทักษะการอ่านก่อนและหลังเรียน แบบทดสอบปลายภาค และแบบสอบถาม การใช้กลยุทธ์ในการอ่าน ผลการวิจัยพบว่าวิธีการสอนที่เน้นการใช้กลยุทธ์การอ่านในการทำความเข้าใจบทอ่านช่วยเพิ่มความสามารถในการอ่านภาษาอังกฤษของผู้เรียนให้สูงขึ้น และผู้สอนสามารถกระตุ้นให้ผู้เรียน
ประยุกต์ใช้กลยุทธ์เหล่านั้นกับการอ่านในสถานการณ์ต่างๆ ได้ ดังนั้นในการเรียนการสอนการอ่านภาษาอังกฤษผู้สอนควรกำหนดเป้าหมายหลักของรูปแบบการสอนการอ่านเพื่อเพิ่มความสามารถในการใช้กลยุทธ์การอ่านให้กับผู้เรียนเพื่อให้ผู้เรียนสามารถนำกลยุทธ์ลักษณะนี้ไปใช้ในการอ่านซึ่งจะส่งผลให้การอ่านนั้นประสบผลสำเร็จ
คำสำคัญ : กลยุทธ์การอ่านแบบพุทธิปัญญา กลยุทธ์
การอ่านแบบอภิปัญญา กลยุทธ์การอ่าน
Abstract
This study aims at promoting reading strategy
use among tertiary level EFL students of science
and technology in reading English texts. In the
study, five issues were investigated: 1) the reading
strategy use of Thai EFL scientific and
technological students of three reading proficiency
levels– high, intermediate, and low, 2) the effects of
strategies-based instruction on learners’ use of
reading strategies to deal with English texts, 3) the
extent to which the instructors help raise learners’
awareness of using strategies in their reading, 4) the
learners’ attitudes towards using reading strategies,
1 Lecturer, Department of Languages, Faculty of Applied Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology
North Bangkok. 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Languages, Faculty of Applied Arts, King Mongkut’s University of
Technology North Bangkok.
* Corresponding Author, Tel.0-2913-2500, Ext. 3511, E-mail: [email protected]
Received February 2, 2009; Accepted July 15, 2009
330
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
and 5) the problems of using strategies in learners’
reading. Empirical data were collected from 207
undergraduate students by means of pre- and post-
reading comprehension tests, an achievement test as
well as a questionnaire. The findings reveal positive
effects of strategies-based instruction on learners’
reading proficiency. Pedagogical implications were
made for teaching EFL reading by encouraging
reading strategy use among learners in order to
improve their reading comprehension skills.
Keywords: Cognitive Strategies, Metacognitive
Strategies, Reading Strategies
1. Introduction
Reading in English is important for Thai
students of science and technology. These students
are supposed to be highly qualified scientific and
technological personnel who help push Thailand
forward to the society of scientific and technological
independence [1]. Furthermore, the ability to deal
with English texts is regarded by students as an
influence on career options and educational
continuation. Yet, according to Ward [1], it is not
unusual to find scientific and technological students
who are unable to read in a comprehensive and
autonomous way in this important foreign language.
Thus, it is the teachers’ tasks to help students to
develop independent reading ability, and enhancing
this should be considered the major goal of teaching
reading [2].
2. The Study
2.1 Research Background
Theories of reading have undergone changes
and transformations over periods of time. According
to Vaezi [3], reading principles originated as the
traditional view or “a bottom-up, language-based
process” [4], which emphasised the printed text,
shifted to the cognitive view or “a top-down,
knowledge-based process” [4], which focused on
the interaction between the reader’s prior knowledge
and expectations as well as the text, and are now
moved to the metacognitive view. The latter view,
which is currently having a great vogue, is based on
metacognitive knowledge or the control and
manipulation that readers use to understand a text.
The benefits of metacognitive awareness are evident
in proficient readers who are more strategic and use
reading strategies including prior knowledge when
they read.
Promoting metacognitive awareness among
readers of different reading abilities have been
conducted in quite a number of studies. The results
of these studies suggest that if both teachers and
students are aware of reading strategies specific to
the requirements of particular reading tasks, this
combined awareness will result in more meaningful
instruction and will improve student performances
in comprehension. Rasekh and Ranjbary [5]
investigated the effect of metacognitive strategy
training through the use of explicit strategy
instruction on the development of lexical knowledge
of EFL students and the result of the study showed
that explicit metacognitive strategy training has a
significant positive effect on the vocabulary learning
of EFL students. Song [6] studied a reading strategy
training in an ongoing university foreign language
reading classroom and found that strategy training is
effective in enhancing EFL reading and that the
effectiveness of the training varies with L2 reading
proficiency. Smanpan [7] compared high school
331
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
students’ English reading comprehension by the
method based on the metacognitive learning strategy
and the method based on the teacher’s manual and
reported that their comprehension was significantly
higher than before the experiment. La-ongthong [8]
assessed an English reading comprehension
instructional model using metacognitive strategies
for undergraduate students and reported that the
students’ achievement in the use of metacognitive
strategies and their English reading comprehension
were higher than the standard criteria.
2.2 Rationale and Objectives
It is admitted by most teachers of English in
Thailand that Thai students seem not to be able to
comprehend English texts [9]. The difficulties the
students find in their English reading
comprehension are due to various factors.
According to Chandavimol [9], the textbooks used
in Thai schools are abstract and uninteresting and
often have little or no concern with what the
students do in their everyday lives. English reading
comprehension has mainly relied on translating each
sentence word for word into Thai instead of
understanding it as an English sentence, figuring out
its meaning, and evaluating its relationship to other
sentences. After having labouriously spent much
time on translation with heavy resort to English/
Thai dictionaries, students get bored and tired, thus
developing a dislike of English. Thai teachers of
English usually use Thai throughout a lesson rather
than using English, resulting in the students thinking
in Thai. Many teachers just ask their students to read
a passage and translate it word for word, after which
the students are required to do comprehension-
testing exercises. Thai teachers of English often
explain everything by translating it into Thai and tell
the students the answers of the comprehension
questions and what to write for each question. The
classroom is entirely teacher-directed whilst the
students are just learning the lessons passively.
The researchers similarly experienced the
scenarios above. They found that most Thai EFL
readers lack confidence in their own reading ability.
They often read slowly, proceeding word for word,
looking up words frequently and relying excessively
on translation. This brings a high degree of
frustration and lack of comprehension. The method
of teaching reading itself is solely based on the
bottom-up model as it seems to be commonsensible
that comprehension hierarchically processes from
the alphabets to the words and on to decoding
sentences and paragraphs [9]. Only bottom-up or
local strategies which focus on word-for-word
understanding are implicitly taught in class.
Given the above-mentioned situations, the
researchers contended that to teach EFL reading in
the Thai context, students need to receive more
effective instructional practice so as to enhance their
reading achievement. The need is also evident for
thorough grasp of students’ reading problems to help
teachers of English to devise more effective
training. It would also be important to persuade such
student readers to leave the word-for-word
translation for reading and to move towards the idea
of using their background knowledge to consciously
interact with the text by using both bottom-up and
top-down processes through gradual practice and
feedback [9]. At the same time, students’
metacognitive awareness should be activated so that
they will be able to plan, monitor and evaluate their
own reading [10].
332
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
To attain this aim, the present study was
conducted to determine whether the strategies-based
instruction contributes to the level of
comprehension, motivation and autonomy in
scientific and technological readers of English texts.
In comprehensive review, 44 strategies were
gathered from the fundamental premises of
traditional, cognitive, and metacognitive theories
and models of reading. These strategies covered 9
strategies for pre-reading activities, 18 strategies for
during-reading activities, 3 strategies for post-
reading activities, and 14 strategies for
understanding vocabularies. This reading instruction
interwove traditional, cognitive, and metacognitive
strategies in the weekly intervention, which was
hoped to facilitate students’ better understanding of
any text in English. It was also expected that the
results obtained could generate implications for
practical use of strategies in reading classes as well
as provide information needed for teacher training
in the area of reading strategies.
Five specific research objectives were:
1. to survey the pre- and post-instructional use
of reading strategies of Thai EFL scientific and
technological students of three reading proficiency
levels - high, intermediate, and low,
2. to investigate the effects of strategies-based
instruction on the learners’ use of strategies and
their English reading comprehension,
3. to explore the extent to which the instructors
help to raise the learners’ awareness of strategy use
in their reading,
4. to explore the learners’ attitudes towards
using strategies in their reading, and
5. to explore the learners’ problems of using
strategies in their reading.
2.3 Methodology
2.3.1 Instrument
This study was carried out as a classroom
action research. The employed instruments
included: tests of English reading skills and
comprehension (pre-test and post-test), an
achievement test (final exam), and pre- and post-
instructional strategy use questionnaire.
The same test was used as a parallel test for
pre- and post-testing phases. It comprises two parts:
Part I: Reading Skills and Strategies and Part II:
Unseen Passages. The achievement test was
constructed according to the same test specification
as those of the pre- and post-tests. Both types of test
were examined by two teachers of English from the
Faculty of Applied Arts to assume language
accuracy and content validity. The results of the test
administration demonstrated KR20 reliability
coefficients of 0.82, which was above the acceptable
criteria of 0.75 [11]. The questionnaire is a 44-item
Likert-type response scale survey which is
composed of two parts: (1) the respondents’
personal data and their English learning experience,
(2) the respondents’ frequency of actual use of
reading strategies (5-point rating scales). Additional
open-ended questions on opinions and problems that
the respondents may find when using these
strategies were also attached to the post-
instructional strategy use questionnaire. The
questionnaire was examined by three teachers of
English and later revised for clarity of the questions
asked.
2.3.2 Subjects
The subjects were 207 Thai EFL undergraduate
students of King Mongkut’s University of Technology
North Bangkok (61 from the engineering domain
333
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
and 146 from the science domain) who took the
Reading I course in the second term of the academic
year 2006. This reading course is one of the EAP
elective subjects provided by the Department of
Languages, Faculty of Applied Arts. Since all the
enrolled students are required to complete two
prerequisite courses (English I and English II), their
knowledge of English is considered up to par for
this reading course. The different sources of subjects
were thus considered not an influencing factor in
this study.
2.4 Data Collection Procedure and Analysis
This empirical study was carried out in six
intact classes where the two researchers were the
teachers themselves (3 classes each). The instruction
was strategies-based orientation, using a prescribed
course book, titled ReadSmart I [12]. The course
lasted 17 weeks and the data collection was done in
three phases: pre-instructional period (Week 1),
interventional period (Weeks 2-15), and post-
instructional period (Week 16).
Pre-instructional period: All subjects were pre-
tested to determine their pre-instructional level of
English reading comprehension ability. A pre-
instructional questionnaire was administered to
explore strategy use of all subjects before the
intervention. The scores gained from the pre-test
were used to divide the subjects into three groups
using the 33% technique [11], namely high-,
intermediate- and low-reading proficiency groups.
Interventional period: A 3-hour lesson was
taught weekly for 15 weeks. Forty four strategies
were introduced proportionally in each learning
session. Students were taught explicitly what each
individual strategy is (declarative knowledge), the
context or situation in which the strategy should be
used or applied (situational knowledge), and how to
employ the strategy (procedural knowledge). Each
session comprised a pre-reading phase, a during-
reading phase, and a post-reading phase. In each of
the instructional phases, traditional strategies (e.g.,
resourcing, breaking lexical items into parts,
scanning for explicit information), cognitive
strategies (e.g., visualising information read,
questioning the text, using graphic organisers), and
metacognitive strategies (e.g., advance organization,
problem identification, goal setting or selective
attention) were directly and explicitly taught in
order for the students to strategically use any of
them to deal with various texts in English. In order
to practise using the strategies taught, the students
were asked to do two intensive reading exercises
from the textbook with the teacher in each class
period and do another two narrow reading exercises
on their own as homework assignments for their
further practice. The difficulties that the teacher
found from the submitted assignments were
reviewed and discussed for clarification in later
classes.
Post-instructional period: The intervention was
followed by the post-test. The obtained scores were
compared to reveal changes in performance of
reading comprehension between the pre- and post-
tests. A follow-up strategy use questionnaire was
once again administered. In addition, two weeks
after the course ended, the students took a final
exam which was administered parallel to the post-
test. The obtained scores were correlated to unveil
alterations in performance of reading
comprehension between the post-test and the final
exam.
334
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
The data obtained from the tests and the
questionnaire were analysed quantitatively. The
qualitative analysis was done through comparing
and contrasting descriptions of the subjects’ strategy
use, opinions, and problems concerned. The results
were described and discussed for pedagogical implications.
3. Results
This part reports and discusses results
according to the research objectives.
1. The pre- and post-instructional use of
reading strategies of Thai EFL scientific and
technological students of three reading proficiency
levels- high, intermediate, and low
The pre- and post-instructional strategy use
questionnaire asked the students to report the extent
to which they use the described strategies on 5-point
rating scales, namely (5) always, (4) usually, (3)
sometimes, (2) rarely, (1) never. Mean scores were
calculated to indicate the degree to which each
group of students perceive themselves to be using a
particular strategy: a mean score of 1-1.80 indicates
no awareness of using a strategy, 1.81-2.60 using a
strategy occasionally, 2.61-3.40 using a strategy
sometimes, 3.41-4.20 using a strategy usually,
whereas a mean score of 4.21-5.00 indicates using a
strategy all the time when reading.
At both times of the strategy use survey, the
mean scores obtained from the three proficiency
groups were compared using One-way ANOVA.
The results show that the reported patterns of
strategy use of the three groups were not
significantly different at the 0.05 level at both times
(Time 1 = sig. 0.052, Time 2 = sig. 0.055, see Tables
1 and 2). This means that the students of the three
groups did not report different levels of strategy use.
Table 1 The mean scores of reported strategy use
from pre-instructional strategy use
questionnaire
Sum of Squares
Df Mean Square
F Sig.
Between Groups 1.483 2 0.742 3.033 0.052
Within Groups 31.548 129 0.245
Total 33.032 131
Table 2 The mean scores of reported strategy use
from post-instructional strategy use
questionnaire
Sum of Squares
Df Mean Square
F Sig.
Between Groups 1.133 2 0.566 2.968 0.055
Within Groups 24.621 129 0.191
Total 25.754 131
The mean scores of individual strategies were
also set in rank order. The mean scores of the top
five popular strategies at both times of the survey
fell into the same categories of using a strategy all
the time (4.21-5.00) and using a strategy usually
(3.41-4.20), which means that the students reported
a high utilisation of these most popular strategies
when they read English texts (see Tables 3 and 4). In
terms of individual strategies, the high-reading
proficiency group reported at both times a wider
variety of strategies. This suggests that the subjects
in this group tended to use these five reading
strategies in their own style. On the other hand, the
same five favourite strategies were reported by the
intermediate- and low-reading proficiency groups at
both times of the survey. This indicates that the
subjects in these lower-reading proficiency groups
used reading strategies in a more similar style than
their higher-reading proficiency peers. However, no
difference was found among high-, intermediate-
335
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
Table 3 The rank order of top five reported reading strategies before the instruction
Ran
k
Most popular strategies
High Group Intermediate Group Low Group
Strategies Type X Strategies Type X Strategies Type X
1 Adjusting reading rate according to the text’s difficulty
TS 4.26 Resourcing TS 4.18 Resourcing TS 4.16
2 Going back to read unknown words or incomprehensible parts
TS 4.13 Adjusting reading rate according to the text’s difficulty
TS 4.16 Comprehension monitoring
MS 4.07
3 Using local context clues to interpret meaning
TS 4.12 Comprehension monitoring
MS 4.10 Adjusting reading rate according to the text’s difficulty
TS 3.88
4 Comprehension monitoring MS 4.10 Problem monitoring and evaluation
MS 4.09 Problem monitoring and evaluation
MS 3.86
5 Going back to read the understandable parts to help interpret the unclear parts
TS 4.10 Paying close attention to difficult words or segments
TS 3.96 Paying close attention to difficult words or segments
TS 3.70
Total types found: TS (Traditional Strategies) = 5, CS (Cognitive Strategies) = 0, MS (Metacognitive Strategies) = 2
Table 4 The rank order of top five reported reading strategies after instruction
Ran
k
Most popular strategies
High Group Intermediate Group Low Group
Strategies Type X Strategies Type X Strategies Type X
1 Adjusting reading rate according to the text’s difficulty
TS 4.28 Adjusting reading rate according to the text’s difficulty
TS 4.35 Adjusting reading rate according to the text’s difficulty
TS 4.29
2 Problem monitoring and evaluation
MS 4.22 Resourcing TS 4.14 Resourcing TS 4.13
3 Comprehension monitoring MS 4.20 C o m p r e h e n s i o n monitoring
MS 4.10 C o m p r e h e n s i o n monitoring
MS 4.10
4 Going back to correct what was misunderstood
TS 4.16 Problem monitoring and evaluation
MS 4.06 Paying close attention to difficult words or segments
TS 4.09
5 Going back to read unknown words or incomprehensible parts
TS 4.14 Paying close attention to difficult words or segments
TS 4.06 Problem monitoring and evaluation
MS 4.07
Total types found: TS (Traditional Strategies) = 5, CS (Cognitive Strategies) = 0, MS (Metacognitive Strategies) = 2
and low-reading proficiency groups regarding the
choice of strategy type at both pre- and post-
instructional surveys. All groups preferred to use
similar types of strategies, including traditional
strategies (bottom-up processing mode) and
metacognitive strategies (monitoring and evaluating
processing mode).
2. The effects of strategies-based instruction on
336
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
the learners’ use of strategies and their English
reading comprehension
After the pre-test, all 207 students in three
different reading proficiency groups were taught
through the strategies-based instruction for the same
15-week period and they were post-tested in the 16th
week. To find out whether the learners improve
significantly in their English reading ability, the pre-
and post-test mean scores were compared by using a
paired samples t-test. The results indicate that the
post-test mean scores of the three groups are
obviously higher than those obtained from the pre-
test (see Table 5). The differences of the mean
scores of the high-, intermediate-, and low-reading
proficiency groups are 4.26, 7.50, and 10.06
respectively. The t-test results also suggest a
statistically significant difference between the pre-
test and post-test scores (sig. = 0.000). This
indicates that all three groups made good progress in
English reading ability after they were taught
through strategies-based method for 15 weeks
3. To what extent the instructors help to raise
the learners’ awareness of strategy use in their
reading
In order to see whether the teachers can help
to raise the learners’ awareness of strategy use
when they read English texts on their own accord,
the scores obtained from the achievement test (or
final exam which was constructed under the same
specifications as the post-test and administered
after a 2-week interval) were correlated with those
of the post-test. The Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient was used to determine the
relationships between the scores of these two tests.
A moderate positive correlation was found, and
this correlation was statistically significant at the
level of 0.01 (r = 0.561, R2 = 0.31, p = 0.000).
This can be interpreted that the three reading
proficiency groups of students gained greater
awareness of strategy use from the teachers
through their directly teaching strategies during the
course period.
The students finally obtained higher mean
scores in the achievement test than in the post-test
(High = 48.62 : 56.39, Intermediate = 41.09 :
47.32, Low = 34.74 : 42.62, see Table 6). The
differences of the mean scores of the high-,
intermediate-, and low-reading proficiency groups
are 7.77, 6.23, and 7.88 respectively. The t-test
results also suggest a statistically significant
difference between the achievement test and post-
test scores (sig. = 0.000). This indicates that the
three groups made a significant gain in reading
achievement after they were taught to become
aware of their reading strategy use and were able
to apply the strategies taught in class to other
similar reading situations.
Table 5 The mean scores obtained from pre-test
and post-test
High Group N Mean Scores t-value Sig. (2-tailed)
Pre-test 69 44.36 -4.465 0.000
Post-test 69 48.62
Difference 4.26
Intermediate Group N Mean Scores t-value Sig. (2-tailed)
Pre-test 69 33.59 -7.759 0.000
Post-test 69 41.09
Difference 7.50
Low Group N Mean Scores t-value Sig. (2-tailed)
Pre-test 69 24.68 -10.432 0.000
Post-test 69 34.74
Difference 10.06
P < 0.05
337
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
4. The learners’ attitudes towards using
strategies in their reading
The opinions compiled from the open-ended
questions after the intervention revealed that most
subjects found reading strategies beneficial in
facilitating comprehension when reading English
texts. Most students thought that these strategies
helped them to reasonably work out the meaning of
the unknown words from the context without
relying solely on the dictionary [High Group: 36/
148 opinions, 24.32%; Intermediate Group: 39/148
opinions, 26.35%; Low Group: 41/126 opinions,
32.54%). After practising using reading strategies
throughout the course period, the students also
found their thinking process more systematic (High
Group: 26/148 opinions, 17.57%; Intermediate
Group: 17/148 opinions, 11.49%; Low Group: 5/126
opinions, 3.97%). Moreover, they could understand
the contents of the texts much better (High Group:
22/148 opinions, 14.86%; Intermediate Group: 25/
148 opinions, 16.89%; Low Group: 23/126
opinions, 18.25%) whilst their reading speed was
improved faster as well (High Group: 15/148
opinions, 10.14%; Intermediate Group: 6/148
opinions, 4.05%; Low Group: 11/126, 8.73%)
5. The learners’ problems of using strategies in
their reading
The difficulties the students in the three groups
had when using the strategies were identified
through item analysis process. The correct responses
of the post-test (80 question items) were analysed to
assess the degree of difficulty of individual test
items. The criteria include item type 1 with the
range above 0.81, meaning an easy test item; item
type 2 with the range from 0.20-0.80, meaning a
moderate degree of difficulty; and item type 3 with
the range below 0.19, meaning a difficult or too
difficult test item. The results showed that 15 test
items fell into item type 3 covering nine strategies
which were difficult for the students to employ,
namely 1) understanding supporting details, 2) using
signal words to predict, 3) scanning facts from the
texts, 4) making inferences, 5) following ideas
through personal pronouns, 6) using world
knowledge to work out the meaning of unknown
words, 7) using word form to work out the meaning
of a word, 8) predicting the topic before beginning
to read, and 9) predicting the purpose of the text.
The open-ended questions were also attached to
the post-instructional strategy use questionnaire with
an objective to draw feedback from the students of
the three reading proficiency groups on their
utilisation of strategies taught when reading English
texts. The answers compiled from these questions
also revealed some problems the participating
students themselves freely reported having when
Table 6 The mean scores obtained from post-test
and achievement test (final exam)
High Group N Mean Scores t-value Sig. (2-tailed)
Post-test 69 48.62 -7.432 0.000
Achievement test (Final exam)
69 56.39
Difference 7.77
I n t e r m e d i a t e Group
N Mean Scores t-value Sig. (2-tailed)
Post-test 69 41.09 -6.418 0.000
Achievement test (Final exam)
69 47.32
Difference 6.23
Low Group N Mean Scores t-value Sig. (2-tailed)
Post-test 69 34.74 -6.602 0.000
Achievement test (Final exam)
69 42.62
Difference 7.88
P < 0.05
338
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
using strategies to read English texts. Many students
accepted that they could not employ certain strategies
effectively (High Group: 29/98 responses, 29.59%;
Intermediate Group: 35/107 responses, 32.71%; Low
Group: 29/100 responses, 29%). A lot of students had
a limited lexical repertoire (High Group: 27/98
responses, 27.55%; Intermediate Group: 40/107
responses, 37.38%; Low Group: 49/100 responses,
49.00%), whereas some had difficulties interpreting
the meaning of words, sentences or paragraphs (High
Group: 26/98 responses, 26.53%; Intermediate
Group: 9/107 responses, 8.41%; Low Group: 13/100
responses, 13.00%).
4. Discussions
This study was carried out to determine
whether the strategies-based instruction is a better
approach to teaching reading English texts in
Thailand. In spite of some limitations of the study,
this approach is truly a more efficient way to
increase English reading competence. The findings
are discussed according to the research objectives as
follows.
First, there was no change in the sample
subjects’ behaviours of using strategies to facilitate
their reading English texts. This finding was
contradictory to the teachers’ assumption as they
expected an increase of strategy-use frequency
among the three different groups after their explicit
explanations of declarative knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and situational knowledge in class. This
falling short may be particularly due to some
limitations. Such explicit explanations of the
teachers may not have been sufficient to draw the
students’ strategy-use awareness. In addition,
although the subjects reported use of some
strategies, it is difficult to know whether they are
actually using these strategies. The responses
obtained are indicative of the subjects’ reported
frequency of the utilisation of strategies. However,
that the high-reading proficiency students in this
study were found using a wider range of strategies
in their own style is consistent with the finding of
Zhang and Wu [13] who found that good student
readers are different from their lower-proficiency
peers in strategic knowledge.
It is also interesting to note here that traditional
strategies were the most frequently used by the
students in this study as shown in the rank orders of
the top five popular strategies at both times of the
survey although the awareness of using cognitive
and metacognitive strategies was raised in class. The
reason for this may be because the students are still
familiar with the bottom-up model of teaching
reading which has generally been used in Thailand
[9]. They might have also obtained these strategies
through their frequent practice of the bottom-up
strategies embedded in the comprehension exercises
of their past English coursebooks even though the
strategies were not obviously taught [14],[15].
According to this, Thai students apparently seem to
think that reading is word recognition and that
meaning is generated from the alphabets, forming a
word to the words and on to the sentences in the text
which needs decoding. As a result, they are prone to
word-for-word translation. Therefore, to eradicate
this behaviour, global comprehension of the text as a
whole, how strategic readers read, and skill in
regulating the reader’s own reading process should
be promoted much more among student readers.
Second, the data obtained from the subjects
provided sufficient support for the main research
339
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
objective of developing the reading ability of EFL
learners by using strategies from traditional
perspective to deal with the printed form of a text,
cognitive strategies to manipulate a text from the
readers’ prior knowledge and expectations, and
metacognitive strategies to help the readers to
become more successful in planning, monitoring as
well as evaluating their reading comprehension.
These effective results were evidenced by the
obviously higher mean scores obtained from the
pre- to post-tests of the three different reading
proficiency groups (i.e., High = 44.36 : 48.62,
Intermediate = 33.59 : 41.09, Low = 24.68 : 34.74).
Even though no increase in level of strategy use
frequency was found after the instruction as
discussed earlier, the strategy instruction described
in this study still appeared to be not only practical
but also efficient. Such findings generally lend
support to the published research in the field of EFL
reading conducted in other contexts [5],[16],[17].
Third, further evidence that supports the
students’ abilities to apply strategy use to their
reading was a statistically significant correlation
between the mean scores of the post-test and the 2-
week interval achievement test. The higher mean
scores obtained from the latter proved that the
students were developed to become more strategic
readers (i.e., High = 48.62 : 56.39, Intermediate =
41.09 : 47.32, Low = 34.74 : 42.62). This positively
indicates that the teachers can help to raise the
students’ awareness of strategy use when they read
texts in English out of the classroom.
Fourth, after the intervention, positive opinions
towards reading strategies and utilising them were
given by the subjects. Most of the students viewed
that the strategies taught helped them to reasonably
guess the meaning of the unknown words from the
context clues. They also thought that using
strategies helped to systemise their thinking process,
to better make meaning of the texts, and to increase
their reading speed. In short, the students found
reading strategies activated in class beneficial in
facilitating their comprehension of English texts.
This is consistent with the findings reported by
Dadour and Robbins [18] who found that 46
Japanese EFL college students reacted positively to
the cognitive strategy instruction for speaking and
listening.
Finally, the study set out to investigate the
participating students’ points of view regarding the
problems of strategy use in reading from two
sources.
Firstly, the findings from the test item analysis
conducted with the post-test data revealed that nine
strategies are difficult for these sample subjects.
Thus, these problematic strategies, as already
described in item 5 of the Results section, should
also be taken into much consideration by the
teachers when teaching reading.
Secondly, the majority of the subjects
personally expressed in the written survey that they
had: 1) difficulties employing some strategies
efficiently, 2) a limited vocabulary, and 3) problems
in interpreting the meaning of words, sentences or
paragraphs. It can be noticed that the high-reading
proficiency students expressed a higher percentage
of difficulties in item 1 (29.59%) and item 3
(26.53%) than did their low-reading proficiency
peers (item 1, 29%; item 3, 13.00%) even if they
successfully gained higher average scores on the
post-test and the final test. These contradictory
statements may be due to a number of different
340
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
factors. The more proficient students may
consciously feel that they have not yet fully
understood how to employ the strategies taught
(procedural knowledge). But in fact, they may
unconsciously manipulate the reading strategies in a
skillful way to some extent. Another factor is
ascribable to the reliability of the questionnaire
responses that the lower-reading proficiency groups
gave. It is somewhat difficult to know whether they
actually have lesser strategy-use difficulties and
lesser difficulties of lexical and syntactic
interpretation. Since the open-ended questions are
for gathering the respondents’ opinions, the results
are indicative of the problems reflected by diverse
reading proficiency groups.
5. Recommendations
The study has some pedagogical implications
for EFL reading instruction in the present research
setting and others that share similar characteristics.
The teachers of English should set the main goal of
an English reading comprehension instruction using
strategies to help them to be able to successfully
facilitate comprehension. Reading strategies from
the three theoretical sources should be interwoven
for an EFL reading class. An over-reliance should
not be solely put on using knowledge of linguistic
feature with the printed form of a text (traditional
strategies) as it has generally been practised in Thai
EFL reading classes. EFL reading needs the
interplay of the interactive nature of reading and the
constructive nature of comprehension together with
prior knowledge or a usable schema as well as the
control readers execute on their ability to
comprehend a text.
The teachers should strongly emphasise and
explicitly explain more when and how to use
difficult strategies, especially those that were
identified by the test item analysis in this study (i.e.,
understanding supporting details, using signal words
to predict, scanning facts from the texts, making
inferences, following ideas through personal
pronouns, using world knowledge to work out the
meaning of unknown words, using word form to
work out the meaning of a word, predicting the topic
before beginning to read, and predicting the purpose
of the text). What is more, the reading problems the
students themselves have reflected should not be
overlooked (i.e., being unable to use certain
strategies, having a limited vocabulary, and having
difficulties of lexical and syntactic interpretation).
In the light of this study, the researchers
suggest a simple instructional model that
incorporates the above-mentioned features to make
the course more effective for students. The
suggested model places priority on the use of
traditional, cognitive and metacognitive strategies to
activate the process of text comprehension. This
model comprises four main steps with reading
strategies interwoven throughout:
Step 1 Prepare (metacognitive strategies)
Step 2 Read/Read Again (traditional, cognitive
and metacognitive strategies)
Step 3 Remember (cognitive strategies)
Step 4 Vocabulary strategies (traditional
strategies)
Apart from the most important goal of the
above teaching model, which is to help students
develop as strategic and independent readers, the
researchers agree with what Song [6] suggested to
be important factors for the teachers of English to
take into consideration. Firstly, strategies should be
341
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
taught through direct explanation with explicit
teacher modelling, and extensive feedback.
Moreover, students should be made to understand
what the strategies are, where and when they can be
used, and how they are used. Essentially, students
should be well aware of the value and benefit of
using strategies in EFL reading. Secondly, EFL
readers– less capable EFL readers in particular,
should be given long-term intensive and direct
strategy training. Without direct explanation and
explicit teacher modelling for a long period of time
to effectively help students to develop as strategic
readers, no long-term effect would happen on
students [19]. It is also time for the teacher of
English to step away from teaching students the
notion of comprehending an English text word-for-
word, but move towards the idea of understanding a
text through the interaction of bottom-up and top-
down processing modes [9]. Apart from that, the
researchers suggest that the knowledge of
metacognition be included so that our student
readers can become more strategic readers. If so,
they will have an awareness of their own mental
processes, self-monitoring, and self-regulation.
In order to confirm the effects of the strategies-
based instruction on the student readers in a clearer
picture than what has been presented in this study,
further research is recommended to be conducted as
a true or quasi experimental study which aims to
compare the better outcomes of strategies-based
instruction and traditional method of teaching
reading which is still generally used in the Thai
classroom context. In doing so, the relationship
between strategy use and reading proficiency may
be clarified in a broader view. Moreover, it is also
interesting to study the impact of strategies-based
instruction on other language skills (i.e., listening-
speaking and writing) in this same research setting
as not much of the research relates particularly to
these skills. Lastly, learners’ perspective of the style
preference is necessary to be considered when
teaching language learning strategies, that is to say
how specific tasks might work for particular
learning style preferences and require certain
language strategies. This area of research is worth
investigating as well.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express our
appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Supalak Nakornsri
for giving us valuable advice on statistical
procedures for this study. Financial funding granted
by King Mongkut’s University of Technology North
Bangkok is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] J. Ward, “EST: evading scientific text
[Electronic version],” English for Specific
Purposes, vol.20, no.2, pp.141-152, 2001.
[2] G.P. Moser & T. G. Morrison, “Increasing
students’ achievement and interest in reading,”
Reading Horizons, vol.38, pp.233-245, 1998.
[3] S. Vaezi, (2006). Theories of reading Teaching
English. Retrieved May 25, 2006 from http://
www.teachingenglish.org.uk:think:articles:theo
ries-reading-2
[4] E.L. Block, “See how they read: comprehension
monitoring of L1 and L2 readers,” TESOL
Quarterly, vol.26, no.2, pp.319-343, 1992.
[5] Z. E. Rasekh & R. Ranjbary, (2003, May 27).
“Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary
learning,” TESL-EJ [Online]. 7 (2). Available:
342
วารสารวิชาการพระจอมเกล้าพระนครเหนือ ปีที่ 19 ฉบับที่ 3 ก.ย. - ธ.ค. 2552 The Journal of KMUTNB., Vol. 19, No. 3, Sep. - Dec. 2009
http://www-writing.berkely.edu:TESL-EJ:ej26:
a5.html
[6] M. Song, “Teaching reading strategies in a
ongoing EFL university reading classroom,”
Asian Journal of English Language Teaching,
vol.8, pp. 41-54, 1998.
[7] ธิดารัตน์ สมานพันธ์, “การเปรียบเทียบความเข้าใจในการอ่านภาษาอังกฤษของนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 4 ที่ได้รับการสอนโดยวิธีสอนที่ใช้ยุทธศาสตร์การเรียนรู้เมตาคอกนิชันกับวิธีสอนตามคู่มือครู.” วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญาศึกษาศาสตร์มหาบัณฑิต คณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัย ขอนแก่น, 2540.
[8] สุเทียบ ละอองทอง, “การพัฒนารูปแบบการสอนอา่นภาษาองักฤษเพือ่ความเขา้ใจโดยใชย้ทุธศาสตร์เมตาคอกนิชัน สำหรับนักศึกษาระดับปริญญาตรี สถาบันราชภัฏบุรีรัมย์,” วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญาศึกษาศาสตร์ดุษฎีบัณฑิต คณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่น, 2545.
[9] M. Chandavimol, “Reading Comprehension:
An Active Engagement or a Passive Experience?”
PASAA, vol.28, pp.31-41, 1998.
[10] W.P. Rivers, “Autonomy at all costs: An
ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment
and self-management among experienced
language learners,” Modern Language Journal,
vol.85, no.2, pp.279-290, 2001.
[11] สพุฒัน ์สกุลมสนัต,์ การวเิคราะหข์อ้ทดสอบแนวใหม่ดว้ยคอมพวิเตอร,์ กรงุเทพ : บรษิทัวทิยพฒัน ์จำกดั, 2538.
[12] C. Pavlik, Read smart 1, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, 2004.
[13] L.J. Zhang & A. Wu, “Chinese senior high
school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness
and reading-strategy use [Electronic version],”
Reading in a Foreign Language, vol.21, no.1,
pp.37-59, 2009.
[14] S. Paris, M. Lipson & K. Wixson, “Becoming a
strategic reader,” In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddel,
& H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes
of reading, 4th ed., pp. 788-810, Newark, DE:
International Reading Association, 1994.
[15] M. Pressley, “Metacognition and self-regulated
instruction,” In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels
(Eds.), What research has to say about reading
instruction, 3rd ed., pp.291-309, Newark, DE:
International Reading Association, 2002.
[16] P.L. Carrell, B.G. Pharis & J. Liberto,
“Metacognitive strategy training for ESL
reading,” TESOL Quarterly, vol.23, pp.647-
678, 1989.
[17] T. Hudson, “Theoretical perspective on
reading,” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, vol.18, pp.43-60, 1998.
[18] E.S. Dadour & J. Robbins, University-level
studies using strategy instruction to improve
speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. In Oxford
R.L. (Ed.), Language learning strategies
around the world: Cross-cultural Perspectives
(pp. 157-167), Second Language Teaching &
Curriculum Centre, University of Hawaii,
Honolulu, 1996.
[19] K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating
cognitive theory and classroom practice,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1994.